A landmark case

Staten Islanders have a lot more in common with the residents of Grand Island, N.Y., beyond the fact that both live on islands in New York State.

The 18,000 or so people who live in that town on the Niagara River north of Buffalo, like Staten Island residents, can take advantage of special toll discounts on the bridge they must drive over to get them between their island and other places. Residents of Grand Island have no choice but to travel over toll bridges far more often than most other people. Thus, they are far more burdened than other people by these tolls, as are Staten Islanders by tolls on the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge.

The New York State Thruway Authority, which operates the Grand Island Bridge, uses the same fairness-based rationale that the Metropolitan Transportation employs to grant Staten Islanders who sign up a resident discount on E-ZPass tolls on the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge ($5.48 charged to E-ZPass per round-trip, versus the $11 cash toll and $9.14 non-resident E-ZPass toll).

The Thruway Authority allows residents of Grand Island with E-ZPass to pay a monthly minimum charge of $5.20 (20 trips at 26 cents per trip) to use the Grand Island Bridge. The full toll on that Erie County bridge is $1 a trip.

In both cases, the discount is reasonable and equitable, given the disproportionate financial hardship borne by any driver who is forced to use these bridges on a regular basis.

There are those people who object to such “favoritism,” however, and have been willing to take the issue to court. One Robert Selevan and other plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court charging that the Thruway Authority’s differentiated toll system on the Grand Island Bridge is discriminatory, and therefore, unconstitutional.

The case was initially dismissed in Northern District Court, which ruled that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. However, the plaintiffs appealed and, in a stunning reversal, the federal 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that the case had merit and agreed to hear it.

The ramifications for Staten Island drivers, and residents of other areas in New York and other states, are significant. A similar lawsuit, Janes vs. Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority, was filed in 2006. It likewise challenges the constitutionality of the resident toll discount on the Verrazano for Staten Island E-ZPass users. That case was stayed, pending the outcome of the Selevan case.

Similar lawsuits have been filed challenging toll policies in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, and they too are on hold, awaiting the outcome of the Grand Island case.

So the Selevan case has been set up as a landmark test of toll discounts policy. It could well set a precedent that will affect the outcome of all these other toll cases, including the Janes challenge to the Verrazano resident discount program.

On the face of it, these challenges are patently wrong-headed, in light of the disproportionate hardship borne by residents of some places where tolls are a fact of daily driving life.

Rep. Michael McMahon thundered, “This is ridiculous. The case isn’t about economic protectionism; it’s about fairness for people burdened by these tolls on a daily basis. Further, this case is not an isolated, area-specific issue. The ultimate decision will affect all New Yorkers and potentially residents of other states where similar cases are pending because of the precedent it will set.”

However, we’ve seen commonsense notions of fairness fall victim to finely read interpretations of constitutional law before in the federal courts. The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision that the Selevan case has merit and should proceed is alarming, indeed.

Staten Islanders don’t often have reason to root for state authorities, but in the Selevan case, Staten Islanders should hope the state Thruway Authority prevails.